Monthly Archives: February 2013

Neuroplasticity; challenging the synapse and neurotransmitter “pruning” theory in the early stages of development. PART 2

The logical explanation for the advent of neuroscience would mean, indeed conclude
that we are pioneering and embarking upon the process of unleashing the latent 80% of
brain potential. To initially understand how to unleash that 80%, we must understand the
preschool brain – rather we must understand the basic construction of our brain’s
information operating system, which is synonymous with the preschool brain.
There are a few cognitive and evolutionary assumptions, or rather presumptions that
need to be cleared up about neuroplasticity, and the brain in general. The first thing is
that, we humans are born with underdeveloped brains, meaning our synapses and
neurotransmitters are still mostly or entirely unconnected, whereas animals are born with
fully developed brains – meaning all or most of their neurotransmitters and synapses are
already connected, and they seem to use most or close to 100% of their brains’ potential –
compared with humans who acquire or use only about 20% of the brain’s potential.
Recently, some psychologists and neuroscientists have proposed the idea that we do
indeed actually use 100% of brain potential but that we are only using about 20% at a
time – at any given moment. That may sound relieving to many folks, however if we
look at all of the basic elements of brain potential, we realize that there are too many
disparities in human existence that fall short of functioning according to the properties of
compassion and optimism, which define the brain’s system for operating knowledge and
As mentioned, Neuroscientists are still baffled by the tug of war between the back of
the brain and the front of the brain, this conundrum hardly sums up or defines 100%
cooperation, let alone 100% of brain potential. The clues that would summarize the
cooperative properties and functions between the back of the brain and the front of the
brain are indeed there to be uncovered and discovered, but it depends on a matter of re-
defining what the common denominators are between these two areas of the brain. This
cooperation is rigorously defined by Cognitivology® and any Neuroscientist is welcome
to validate or invalidate these definitions.
The evolution of human cognitive brain development tells the story of how our
brains have evolved from the back to the front and Neuroscience does explain how each
individual brain develops from back to front during the years of brain development –
plus, how the brain is capable of continual learning, re-mapping and improving during
the adult years of life.
Neurons perform an important role in the brain’s ability to process and transmit
information within the brain’s network of neurotransmitters and synapses. We are born
with billions or even trillions of these and somewhere in early development after infancy,
but before the preschooler stage a massive trimming down, or “pruning” of these
neurotransmitters takes place. This happens because we only keep what we use, these
neurotransmitters become “specialized” and since nature naturally conserves, then our
brains dispense or dispose of those parts that we have missed using.
However, this “conservation” premise is a poor assumption, even from the
perspective of evolution or conservation or natural adaptability. The reason to debunk
this presumption is that most natural selection theories propose that natural processes are
modified in accordance with necessity, usage, and environmental influences. If the
principles of natural selection were applicable to the pruning of neurotransmitters, it
would seem more logical for the human brain to dispense with the over-production of
neurotransmitters generation after generation for each and every individual. The more
logical conclusion is that even though some of these neurotransmitters would actually be
pruned, it makes more sense that we are meant to use the majority of them.
The point is that a newer presumption for a new age of thinking would compel us to
consider that the massive pruning is consistent with the 20% scale, or ratio of brain
potential that we’ve become accustomed to activating and using. We might also consider
that if we were revising our definition of synapse and neurotransmitter pruning from the
perspective of Particle Physics and String Theory, we can presume that we are processing
knowledge and information predominantly from a physical-3-D standpoint and that other
inherent structures of the brain need the original bulk of neurotransmitters to process
knowledge and information beyond the physical-3-D realm of energy and matter.
The bottom line is that unless we give most of these neurotransmitters and synapses
a chance to connect to our extrasensory senses how will we know what more our minds
and brains are capable of doing?
So yes, neuroplasticity tosses out the old theory that adults are unable to produce
new neurons or learn new information, or that they are unable to break free from their old
ways of thinking. But the question still remains – why toss away all of those original
neurons and neurotransmitters if we are meant to continually produce neurons and be
capable of re-mapping older patterns of knowledge with newer patterns of knowledge?
Why dispose of billions of neurons in early development only to gain a few thousand or
million in adulthood?
Our free will is equally limited to processing choices, as our brain is limited to
processing knowledge and information. The more brain potential we unleash, the more
free will can be unleashed to also serve its function in conjunction with human
development, creativity, discipline, responsibility, optimism, behavior, compassion,
ethics, consciousness and intelligence. What this tells us is that we must begin asking
new and unasked questions if we are ever to figure out the mysteries of latent human
brain potential.

Neuroplasticity; challenging the synapse and neurotransmitter “pruning” theory in the early stages of development. Part 1

What is the definition of Neuroplasticity? Basically it is the human brain’s – that is
the adult human brain’s ability – to re-map and re-configure the connections between
synapses ~ the information/type of information that is passed around the brain’s
intelligence network, a neuro-net, comprising its billions of synapses and
neurotransmitters. It is the modem of the human brain where all knowledge and
information gets processed.
New evidence even points out that adults can and do develop new neurons, but how
many new neurons, what would we use them for and, incidentally, what is a
connection anyway? A synapse-neurotransmitter connection is just one microscopic
point that information about your thoughts and feelings are passed around in your head.
Your head meaning that there are billions of these microscopic synapse-neurotransmitter
points that make up a whole network of information connecting – and for the real 411,
each information thinking pattern was originally designed as an information feeling
Neuro-scientists sometimes forget to inform the general public about this
connection between feelings and thoughts and how this connection is far more relative to
neuroplasticity than they are willing to explain. But in order to understand this
connection, one must understand the processes and developmental properties of the
preschool learning-feeling-thinking brain – and the preschool brain makes zero
distinctions between learning, feeling and thinking. It’s just that for sophisticated neuro-
scientists to be dabbling in the learning-feeling-thinking processes of the preschool brain,
it just conflicts with their sense of scholarly-ness.
This is precisely the reason why Neuro-scientists are befuddled by the discourse
and struggle between the back of the brain and the front of the brain, because the
potential harmonious connection between the back of the brain and the front of the brain
is primordially decided during the preschool stage when the middle part of the brain, or
the mediating part of the brain comprising the left and right sides, which more or less
houses the brain’s neuro-net, is formulating its major connectivity network that will
eventually connect to the front of the brain and the general higher thinking cortex parts of
the brain.
The higher thinking ‘cortex’ parts of the brain develop their most refining abilities
and properties for complex intelligent thinking beginning in the teen years and stretching
out until the early to mid-20’s – when the brain finalizes its total development, but hardly
the end of learning. Learning is a lifetime process and the years of brain development
help us set up this lifetime learning process. But the foundation of the brain’s structure,
the basement level, so to speak – just like the foundation that will hold a building in place
– this foundation is what is set up during the preschool stage. It is far more major than
even Neuro-scientists can give it credit for.
When folks in general agree upon the notion that the early years make-up the
foundation for all of life’s tendencies – whether inadvertently or knowingly, what they
are saying is that the first major set-up of the brain’s information processing center is
being constructed.
The first set-up of this information network, or information processing center is the
first major connection set-up between synapses and neurotransmitters. Synapses and
neurotransmitters connect information as associative partners and associative groups so
that information has a network to pass information around in patterns that make sense and
that can be worked to apply to our abilities. This first major network is made during the
preschool stage. These first major associative connections of this network, that is, these
first initial connections are the hardest to change, break and re-design into new
associative connections between what we think and feel.
But there are ways to ensure that these initial first time connections never get in the
way of how we feel and think and how we use our abilities, there’s a way to ensure that
we never even have to work so hard to change these original basic connections, because
these first connections can be made in such a way that they just go ahead and form new
patterns of thinking and feeling the moment we decide to feel and think differently. It is
hard to change these initial-first-formed patterns and associations because they were
made when thinking and feeling had absolutely no distinction or difference whatsoever.
When you are learning as a preschooler you are feeling-thinking-learning. They
are impossibly inseparable. This basic tenet or structure in the way we use our brain’s
neuro-net as adults is completely overlooked in the adult self-improvement world. Until
the adult self-improvement world reconciles with this basic fact, the adult self-
improvement world will just keep going around in circles and recycling the mere 20% of
brain potential that we have been using for thousands of years.

We will bring you Part 2 next week…. Please, if any of this subject is interesting visit our website: and we can also be found at

The inextricable link between free will and human brain development

As mentioned in earlier blog entries, whether you believe in a divine being or whether
you believe in the panspermia-alien theory, or whether you believe that the human race
evolved here by a cosmic game of chance, the result is still that we are all faced with the
same deal. That deal deems that the human brain has unfolded and developed into the
most complex entity in all of the universe – and we all possess one of these brains,
regardless of what we believe and our brains function according to certain properties that are consistent with certain basic natural properties of the universe.
The complexity of the human brain simply means that it is capable of complex
intelligent thinking and empathetic behavior functions. Altogether, this would suggest
that an intelligent designer was at the drawing board of this complex strategy for the
development of the human brain. But this is hardly a debate about the origins of the
human brain. This is about the resulting reality that we are in possession of such a
complex piece of equipment. So the question is – what shall we do with it and how can
we uncover and ensure the prospect of using all of its potential?